By PIPER FOGG
July 7, 2006
When Hurricane Katrina whipped through New Orleans late last summer, Loyola
University New Orleans escaped the bulk of nature's wrath. While many
faculty and staff members suffered personal losses, the campus itself
survived largely intact. Less than four months after the hurricane hit, the
university was able to throw open its doors and start the new year on a
hopeful note.
But that note has already begun to fade. In the fall, Loyola's president had
announced the need for a strategic plan to help the university rebound from
Katrina. Freshman enrollment, he said, was expected to plummet this August,
down from the usual 850 students to 600 or 700. And without major changes,
the university would face a $10-million shortfall.
The resulting plan, created by the provost's office and approved by the
Board of Trustees in May, calls for the dismissal of 17 tenured or
tenure-track faculty members, the eliminatation of 14 academic programs, and
the suspension of 12 other programs. Many professors have responded to the
plan with anger and disbelief, saying that if their administrators can use a
crisis as their excuse, other colleges could be next.
Some professors complain they had no real say in a plan that they dismiss as
misguided, ill-conceived, and even discriminatory. They accuse
administrators of using faulty data about programs' expenses, revenues, and
enrollment, and of pushing the plan through too fast. They warn that the
cuts may compound some problems: Students will not be able to complete their
majors, and student recruiting for next year will suffer.
Said one professor of the plan: "Now you're creating a second Katrina."
Administrators say change is hard, but necessary. The strategic plan had
been in the works for several years, they say, but Katrina demanded decisive
action. "This university will emerge from this much stronger," says the
provost, Walter Harris Jr.
Some faculty members sympathize, saying administrators did the best they
could under tough circumstances. "This is a difficult time, and the
administration has to act, and act forthrightly," says Alfred Lawrence
Lorenz, a journalism professor.
But the American Association of University Professors has warned Loyola
officials they are making a big mistake. The group has created a special
committee to look into post-Katrina restructuring plans at various New
Orleans colleges. Of particular concern are administrative actions at Tulane
University, the University of New Orleans, and Loyola, where committee
members worry officials are using the hurricane as an excuse to flout the
institutions' own policies.
Jordan E. Kurland, the AAUP's associate general secretary, has told Loyola's
president that the organization objects to the cuts and dismissals there. He
points out that the university's own policies require such actions to be
sanctioned by an appropriate faculty body. That never happened, he notes. In
fact, faculty members in the College of Arts and Sciences recorded a 71-2
vote of no-confidence in the provost and his two deputies in May.
Mr. Kurland suspects that Loyola administrators are unfairly using Katrina
as a justification for getting rid of professors and programs. "What's the
phrase? A crisis is a terrible thing to waste?" says Mr. Kurland, who will
visit the campus in August along with other committee members. "There's no
crisis they're facing of which I'm aware."
Wrong Path?
Loyola's president, the Rev. Kevin W. Wildes, a Jesuit priest, is confident
that he is doing the right thing. In an open letter dated April 10, the same
day the university released the plan ‹ dubbed "Pathways Toward Our Second
Century" ‹ he wrote: "I am of the firm belief that we are charting the
proper course to serve students as we look forward to beginning our second
century in 2012. The methodology used to formulate the plan was both
comprehensive and deliberate."
Some faculty members say the only thing deliberate about the Pathways plan
was the lack of inclusiveness and transparency surrounding its creation. Not
so, says Mr. Harris, the provost. "We allowed more input than any other
university," he says, referring to other institutions in the city that have
restructured themselves in Katrina's wake.
Mr. Harris released a set of criteria in January by which his office would
judge all university programs. He also asked the university's deans to rank
the programs in their own colleges.
But the plan kept some programs the deans had ranked at the bottom of the
pile, while it cut others that had been ranked closer to the top. "There was
no method to the madness," says Connie L. Rodriguez, an associate professor
of classics, whose program was ranked poorly but was saved.
The programs that were cut include computer science, elementary and
secondary education, and several concentrations within the communications
major: broadcast journalism, broadcast production, communication studies,
and film studies. The plan also split the College of Arts and Sciences into
two new colleges, one focusing on the liberal arts and natural sciences, the
other on behavioral and social sciences.
The plan's purpose, according to officials, is to refocus the university's
resources on its strengths: In post-Katrina New Orleans, it cannot be
everything to everybody. Mr. Harris says the president communicated
regularly with the rest of the university about the effort, and solicited
advice along the way, including through an internal president's advisory
committee made up of nine administrators and staff members, two students,
and three elected faculty members.
Mary I. Blue, an associate professor and head of broadcast production, was
one of those faculty representatives. She says the advisory committee only
met about four times, even though its members were originally told it would
meet as often as once a week.
Ms. Blue, who is one of the 17 professors being dismissed, says the
president handed out drafts of the plan and asked the group for comments,
but never really incorporated their suggestions. And, she says, there was
never any discussion of individual academic programs. "This was like a
sucker punch," she says.
The program review should not have been done by the provost's office, Ms.
Blue argues, but by an elected faculty body, in line with the AAUP's
guidelines and Loyola's own policies. The university's faculty handbook
reads: "A proposal to discontinue a program or department of instruction
will be evaluated by the Standing Council for Academic Planning, which will
apply the criteria established by the University Senate." The senate, she
complains, did not develop the criteria. Instead, it was a top-down affair.
The AAUP's Mr. Kurland wrote to Father Wildes last month urging him not to
go ahead with the Pathways plan because of the "strong faculty opposition."
Father Wildes says he is confident that he has followed the AAUP's policies.
Mr. Kurland is incredulous. "Not only do the faculty not give it a green
light," he says, "the senate declined 17 to 2 to support the Pathways plan."
Instead, he notes, they wanted to table it until November. He said Loyola
officials are "moving to significantly change the programs, the curriculum,
and to terminate tenure on a basis that is just wrong on their own policies
and their own standards."
The special committee sees a "flagrant denial" of policies that call for
faculty approval when making fundamental educational changes, says Mr.
Kurland. "We've never seen anything like this."
Neither has Stephen M. Scariano, a professor of mathematics and computer
science and a member of the president's advisory committee. He says the
advisory committee's time was "ill spent and there was nothing of substance
brought before the committee" regarding academic programs or any
restructuring. He also calls the analysis of program data "pedestrian" and
the plan "sloppily" and "hastily done." Others have called the data flat out
wrong.
Administrators insist their data are correct. They say they relied on a
variety of sources, including outside studies and internal figures from the
registrar's office. Regardless of the accuracy of the data, professors say
many of the cuts are not even supported by the provost's own numbers.
Take broadcast journalism and broadcast production. According to the
provost's data tables, more students major in those concentrations ‹ 48
combined ‹ than in print journalism and photojournalism, which have only 22
combined. But the broadcast programs were cut, while print and
photojournalism were retained. Professors do not understand the logic.
When asked about that data, Father Wildes says, "This is where I'm terrible
at remembering the specifics of things." He did say that the decisions were
based on factors besides just numbers. Mr. Harris says they kept the print
programs because they have won awards and have a great reputation. John M.
Cornwell, one of Mr. Harris's two assistant provosts, says it really came
down to money: The broadcast programs, which rely on pricey equipment, cost
the university $150,000 a year, he says, so they were too expensive to
continue.
But the head of broadcast journalism takes issue with that figure. "Where
this comes from I don't know," says Nancy M. Dupont, the associate professor
who leads the program. She is another of the 17 professors being dismissed.
Mr. Cornwell says the cost figures come from the dean's office and the
programs' own records, but Ms. Dupont says the number is way overblown.
The broadcast programs are supported by grants, endowments, and student
fees, she says. And the university spent $200,000 to upgrade equipment in
2003, but she says that kind of spending happens maybe once a decade. As for
the program's national reputation, she says, it is "flawless." Recent
graduates have landed jobs at CNN, CBS News, and NBC News, both nationally
and locally.
Arguments about money, say some faculty members, are misplaced to begin
with, since officials say they are basing the decisions foremost on
educational considerations. Some professors don't understand why Loyola,
which has a healthy $325-million endowment, cannot bump up the annual draw
on the interest to 8 percent from its current 5 percent. Such a change could
be for just a few years, easing the budget pressure.
Officials say this would be irresponsible. At that withdrawal rate, they
might have to touch the principal, and not just the investment income, and
they say that, besides, it would not be enough money.
Other faculty members point out that the university is due millions of
dollars in business-interruption insurance. Father Wildes says that money,
which he estimates at $5-million, is not coming anytime soon since the
insurance company is fighting the claim.
In a May 22 letter, a few days after the Board of Trustees approved the
Pathways plan, Father Wildes wrote another open letter to the university. He
defended his decisions and expressed confidence in the provost, the process,
and the plan. The closing paragraph has especially riled some faculty
members. Father Wildes wrote, "The work of planning and moving the
University forward ... is a work, I believe, that is part of God's hopes for
the making of a better world."
"I'm so lucky to be around somebody who knows the mind of God," says Ms.
Blue.
Ms. Dupont is likewise upset by the president's tone. "One of the things
that has really killed me emotionally is that this has been put in the terms
of 'This is God's will,'" she says. "It's always God, God, God. ... This is
not God's will. This is the will of a bunch of people. It's offensive."
(Father Wildes says he has never said the plan is God's will.)
More Time
Professors say the university should have given everyone more time to digest
the plan. In April officials released a revised version of program criteria.
They gave a faculty body charged with reviewing the Pathways plan eight days
to respond. Officials also told the group that if it wanted to recommend
keeping a program slated for elimination, it would have to come up with
equivalent cost savings.
Faculty committees complained that was not enough time to review the plan
thoroughly and that the data was inadequate. The timetable, says María E.
Calzada, a mathematics professor and member of the standing committee, was
"ridiculous."
"We were not given a chance to do things by our own faculty handbook," she
says. Still, the standing committee came up with several suggested revisions
and cost-saving measures. But officials did not take most of those
suggestions, and the plan was approved by trustees on May 19.
Father Wildes is not particularly bothered that the plan has upset so many
professors. "They gave me few alternatives," he says. He also says that
dozens of other professors have privately expressed their support for it.
"Change is hard," he says.
The provost stands with the president. Mr. Harris says officials followed
university policies and the time allotted for faculty review was "adequate."
He dismisses the vote of no confidence by the faculty of arts and sciences.
"People got caught up in the heat of the moment," he says.
Some faculty members are giving administrators the benefit of the doubt.
Katherine H. Adams, an English professor, says people outside New Orleans
don't understand the impact the hurricane has had on the campus and the
city. "These are very scary times," she says. "You've got to give
administrators a right to make decisions a little more quickly and with a
little less faculty input."
George E. Capowich, an assistant professor of sociology, thinks the plan is
thoughtful. "It focuses our resources in areas that are strengths, in areas
that are consistent with a liberal-arts university," he says.
Mr. Capowich, whose program will remain intact but will move to one of the
newly created colleges, says splitting arts and sciences makes sense.
Currently, he says, too many disparate programs are under one umbrella. It
will be easier to manage professors and programs with two separate
administrative structures.
Anthony Decuir, associate dean of the music school, says he is still
ambivalent about some of the program cuts but that waiting a few more months
will not change the situation. "I don't know if there ever is a good time"
to make cuts, he says. "It's like recentering your investments. You have to
do it every so often."
Professors who object to the plan understand that some program cuts are
required; the process is their biggest problem. Ms. Rodriguez, the professor
of classical studies, says, "If they had given us shared governance in this,
if they had been transparent ... this would not be an issue." She says that
professors would have understood the need for serious action: "I think we
could have made constructive decisions ... to help the university through
this."
|
